evaluation of teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N2, 2021 © 2021 INASED

330

Evaluation of Teachers’ Motivation and Curriculum Autonomy Levels1

B. Barış YILDIZ2

Ministry of Education

Gökhan GÜNAY3


Fatih Mutlu ÖZBİLEN4


Abstract

The aim of this research is to evaluate teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy levels. The

research is quantitative and descriptive and designed according to the survey model. The sample of

the research consisted of 340 teachers who have been reached by simple random sampling method

who have been worked in public primary and secondary schools in Istanbul. Motivation Scale

developed by Gagné, Forest, Gilbert, Aube, Morin, and Malorni (2010) and adapted into Turkish by

Çevik and Köse (2017) has been used to determine teachers’ motivation levels. Teachers’ curriculum

autonomy levels have been determined with The Teacher Autonomy Scale developed by Yolcu

(2019). According to the research results, teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy levels are

high. It has been examined whether the motivation and curriculum autonomy levels of teachers differ

significantly according to the variables gender, professional seniority, educational status and the

number of projects participated in professional life. It has been found that the levels of motivation

differ significantly according to gender and the levels of curriculum autonomy differ according to

number of projects participated in professional life. Finally, the research has revealed that there is a

medium-level, positive and significant relationship between teachers’ motivation and curriculum

autonomy levels.

Keywords: Motivation, Teacher Motivation, Curriculum Autonomy

DOI: 10.29329/epasr.2020.345.15

1 This research was presented as a verbal statement at the 11th International Education Management Forum (EYFOR-XI)

held on 17-21 November 2020; afterwards, the necessary regulations have been made and the research has been finalized. 2 Dr., District Director of Education, Ministry of Education, Istanbul, Turkey, ORCID: 0000-0003-1247-3158 3 Teacher, Ministry of Education, Canakkale, Turkey, ORCID: 0000-0002-1430-9186 4 Dr., School Principal, Ministry of Education, Istanbul, Turkey, ORCID: 0000-0003-3187-0028 Correspondence: [email protected]


331

Introduction

Rapid changes and transformations in education and science cause changes in the needs of

students and teachers as well as the need for new regulations regarding the educational process

(Yazıcı, 2016). In other words, these changes bring new responsibilities to the field of education (Lee,

2014). Education is expected to raise individuals who can understand the problems arising in the

national and international arena, interpret them with a critical point of view, and express constructive

thoughts by actively participating in social life in the context of democratic principles and elements.

The teacher element comes to the fore in meeting the constantly changing expectations during the

education process. The teacher is expressed as the driving force of change and a factor that makes a

difference in the educational renewal process (Julião, 2018). In other words, the teacher is an

important figure that controls and balances the education process (Sehrawat, 2014).

It is thought that teachers with high motivation are needed for this process to be effective and

efficient. As a matter of fact, as Özbilen, Günay and Yıldız (2020) stated, teacher motivation stands

out as an important component of teacher quality. Teacher motivation is necessary for the education

and training process in order to motivate students to learn, to realize educational reforms through

teachers, and to ensure teachers’ own personal satisfaction (Neves de Jesus & Lens, 2005). Teacher

motivation also has a role that affects job success (Sari & Yetkiner, 2020). In addition, it can be said

that teacher motivation will contribute to the redesign of the applied national education curriculums in

accordance with the current situation. In this respect, it can be said that the centrally prepared

curriculum has the potential to reduce the gap between the educational goals that teachers expect to

realize and the real learning needs of students. As Julião (2018) stated, teachers have responsibilities

in ensuring that the elements that make up the central curriculum comply with the real learning needs

at the local level. Again, as stated by the researcher, teachers have a significant role in the regulation

of education-training processes, that is, in making the curriculum functional, independent of the basic

paradigm of the applied education curriculum. Therefore, there is a need for teachers who can

organize the central education curriculum by using the principles of curriculum autonomy as a

catalyst with their critical and relational skills in the context of local conditions and student needs for

an effective education process. As a matter of fact, as Wu (2015) stated, teachers’ high curriculum

autonomy increases the motivation for participating in school activities. In this context, when teacher

motivation is considered as a factor affecting the quality of the education process, such as curriculum

autonomy, it is thought that qualified education can be provided by motivated teachers who have

curriculum autonomy.

Motivation, in the most general sense, is expressed as the processes that activate and maintain

human behavior (McMillan & Forsyth, 1991). In the expression of Tohidi and Jabbari (2012),

motivation in human behavior; it is a driving force that directs, controls and resists. Şeker (2015)


332

states that the concept of motivation is a term used to explain a certain behavior and that motivation is

the motive behind people’s actions. Based on the definitions, motivation can be expressed as the

driving force (energy) that directs people to behavior. In the context of the educational process, it can

be said that motivation is a force that directs students to learn and teachers to the teaching process.

Teacher motivation includes both a desire for teaching and a personal approach towards students. The

teacher’s personal motivation is explained by her enthusiasm in the teaching process and her

professional satisfaction (Revee & Su, 2014). Han and Yin (2016) define teacher motivation as an

effort to teach with intrinsic values associated with teaching and maintaining teaching, and state that

this concept is influenced by many contextual factors. It can be said that this enthusiasm towards the

teaching process can have a positive effect on student learning. As a matter of fact, studies in the

literature show that teacher motivation has a positive effect on students’ academic achievement

(Akhtar, 2013; Akthar, Iqbal, & Tatlah, 2017; Hayden, 2011). As Özbilen et al. (2020) stated, teacher

motivation positively affects all factors related to the education and training process. Therefore,

considering the prominent role of the teacher in the education process, it can be said that teacher

motivation is an important factor affecting the quality of education. As stated by Watt and Richardson

(2008), it is important to determine teachers’ motivations in order to better understand teachers’

responsibilities, commitment and determination in order to understand the factors and processes

underlying teacher quality. If teachers’ motivation is high, their teaching to students will be more

effective, they will be able to increase their efficiency by collaborating more with their colleagues,

and they will be able to bring more innovation to the process (Kotherja & Rapti, 2015). In addition,

since teacher motivation is important in terms of student motivation, teaching process, teachers’

satisfaction and well-being, administrators also have an important responsibility on teacher motivation

(Han & Yin, 2016).

Motivation is closely related to needs. An employee gets motivated when his/her needs are

met. In other words, employees’ needs affect their motivation. Needs can be viewed as physiological

or psychological deficiencies that trigger the behavior. They can be strong or weak and are influenced

by environmental factors, so a person’s needs may vary at different times and in different places, and

they must be met (Utomo, 2018). It can be said that meeting psychological needs in particular plays

an important role in professional success and satisfaction. According to the self-determination theory,

intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation affect professional performance. The theory also suggests

that professional satisfaction is greater in work environments where intrinsic motivation is provided

(Worth & Van den Brande, 2020). Deci and Ryan (2008) state that the existence of three

psychological needs, namely professional competence, professional autonomy, and relations with

colleagues, increases intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the theory points out that teachers’ being

autonomous in the teaching process can increase their intrinsic motivation. In addition, Yıldırım


333

(2021) suggests that, with an approach that overlaps with the theory, mechanisms that support school

autonomy should be established in order to increase teachers’ intrinsic motivation.

Gender plays an important role in determining motivation. Meece, Glienke and Burg (2006)

state that motivational beliefs develop depending on stereotypes based on gender roles. The teaching

profession is perceived as a female profession according to the results of the study based on social

perception (Yaman, 2001). In this respect, it can be said that the motivation levels of teachers may

differ depending on gender. As a matter of fact, it is striking that many studies compare the

motivation levels of teachers according to the gender variable (Bastick, 2000; Ertürk, 2016; Triyanto,

2016). Except for gender in the literature; studies also suggesting that teachers’ motivation levels

differ according to the variables of professional seniority (Gokce, 2010; Uğraş & Özen, 2019),

educational status (Çevik & Köse, 2017; Çiftçi, 2017; Emiroğlu, 2017; Triyanto, 2016; Ugar, 2019)

and participation in professional projects (Gorozidis, & Papaioannou, 2014; Iliya & Ifeoma, 2015;

Schellenbach-Zell & Gräsel, 2010) draw attention. In this respect, it can be said that the variables of

gender, professional seniority, educational status and participation in professional projects may be

factors that differentiate teacher motivation.

The concept of autonomy literally means “self-management”, “independence” or “self

direction” (Collier, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2006). In the words of Yolcu and Akar-Vural (2020),

autonomy is the ability of an individual to have a say over her own choices and actions. In the context

of education, autonomy is expressed as “independent learning capacity” (Dickinson, 1995). In other

words, it is the capacity to take responsibility and control our own learning (Little, 1995). Teacher

autonomy is simply defined as “the freedom to learn and teach” (Sehrawat, 2014). The concept is also

described as reflecting the teacher’s own choices and decisions to the educational processes in the

classroom (Öztürk, 2011). Teacher autonomy is also defined as teachers’ capacity to control their own

teaching processes (Sehrawat, 2014) or “teachers’ willingness, capacity and freedom to control their

own teaching and learning” (Huang, 2005, p. 206). Considering the contexts of the profession,

Canbolat (2020) defines teacher autonomy as “the freedom of the teacher to make decisions regarding

the development and implementation of the education and training curriculum, materials, and school

management and other professional activities” (p. 142). Indeed, teacher autonomy serves as an

umbrella for innovations in teacher education and ongoing teacher development. In this context, with

the autonomy of teachers, it is possible for them to interpret the ideas about teaching and learning

with others to make them more meaningful and realistic and to identify unique teaching-learning

situations in order to find new answers to the problems encountered (Mello, Dutra & Jorge, 2008).

The concept of curriculum autonomy is generally considered as a sub-dimension of

teacher/teaching autonomy in the literature. As a matter of fact, Öztürk (2011) states that teacher

autonomy includes three main elements as “planning and implementation of teaching, active


334

participation in decision-making processes of school administration and developing professional

knowledge and skills” (p. 86). It can be said that the dimension stated by Öztürk (2011) as planning

and implementation of teaching indicates curriculum autonomy in context. Silberstein and Ben-Peretz

(1987) express that teachers produce ideas by evaluating the intended curriculum and develop new

curriculums as the relationship between teacher autonomy and the curriculum dimension. Julião

(2018) likewise points out that curriculum autonomy is a prominent concept in curriculum

restructuring and development. Little (1995), on the other hand, defines teachers as successful

teachers who take responsibility for their own teaching processes and provide the highest level of

emotional and cognitive control of the teaching process through continuous thinking and analysis, and

also emphasizes the importance of curriculum autonomy in one aspect. Curriculum autonomy is

simply defined as the ability of teachers to take an active role in the development of the curriculum

and to provide flexibility in the curriculum during the implementation process (Ben-Peretz, 1980).

Lee (2014) states that curriculum autonomy contributes to filling the gap between what is expected

from the intended curriculum and reality. According to Park (2008), curriculum autonomy can be

expressed as teachers’ designing national curriculums to meet local contexts and the needs of students

(cited in Hong & Youngs, 2016). Similarly, Morgado (2011, p. 397) defines curriculum autonomy as

“the ability to generate ideas in the adaptation of the intended curriculum at the national level in the

process of developing national curriculum, and to adapt the curriculum to the characteristics of the

students, needs and the region where the school is located” (as cited in Julião, 2018, p. 4). Based on

these definitions, curriculum autonomy can be defined as the capacity of teachers to redesign all

aspects of the curriculum (purpose, content, learning-teaching process, evaluation) in order to adapt

the nationally aimed curriculums to local conditions, student interests and learning needs.

When the literature is reviewed, it is seen that curriculum autonomy is examined as a sub-

dimension of teacher autonomy in many studies (Moomaw, 2005; Pearson & Moomaw, 2005; 2006;

Ulaş & Aksu, 2015). When looking at the studies on teacher autonomy, studies that examine and

emphasize the relationship between teachers’ behaviors of supporting teacher autonomy and learner

autonomy (Lamb, 2008; Little, 1995; Smith, 2003; Yazıcı, 2016) and studies examining the

relationship between teacher autonomy and student achievement (Ayral et al., 2014; Gurganious,

2017) draw attention. In addition, studies comparing teachers’ curriculum autonomy levels depending

on gender and professional seniority (Behroozi & Osam, 2016; Çolak, Altınkurt & Yılmaz, 2017;

Yazıcı, 2016), educational status (Behroozi & Osam 2016) and participation in professional projects

(Yolcu, 2019) draw attention. Within the scope of this study, it can be said that the variables of

gender, professional seniority, educational status and participation in professional projects may be

factors that can affect the level of curriculum autonomy of teachers.

In the context of the main subject of the research, there are a limited number of studies that

reveal a significant relationship between the two variables in studies on teacher motivation and


335

teacher autonomy (Worth & Van den Brande, 2020; Wu, 2015). In addition, there is no study in the

literature that can be considered as an important sub-component of teacher autonomy, examining

teacher curriculum autonomy and teacher motivation together and aiming to reveal the link between

the two variables. Motivation and curriculum autonomy are mainly teacher-driven important factors

that can affect the efficiency of the educational process. In this respect, the research is considered

important as it tries to determine the motivation and curriculum autonomy levels of teachers and to

determine the relationship between these two variables. In addition, the research is also important in

terms of shedding light on the effects of these factors, which have an important place in increasing

teacher qualifications.

Purpose of the Research

The purpose of this research is to evaluate teachers’ levels of motivation and curriculum

autonomy. In line with this main purpose, the following sub-goals have been seek answers:

1. What are the teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy levels?

2. Do teachers’ motivation levels differ significantly according to the variables of gender, professional seniority, educational status and number of projects participated in professional life variables?

3. Do teachers’ curriculum autonomy levels differ significantly according to gender, professional seniority, educational status and number of projects participated in professional life variables?

4. Is there a significant relationship between teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy levels?

Method

In this section, information about the research model, research sample, data collection tools,

data analysis and validity and ethical considerations have been given.

Research Model

This research is based on the positivist paradigm. The positivist paradigm advocates that

researchers try to explain the phenomenon studied in the most economical way using quantitative

research methods and adapt the results reached to other situations with inductive inferences (Kivunja

& Kuyini, 2017). In this context, this research is descriptive and has been designed according to the

survey model. Survey models are based on presenting the existing situation as it is and with an

objective approach (Karasar, 2009). In this research, it has been tried to evaluate the motivation and

curriculum autonomy levels of teachers working in schools affiliated to the Ministry of National

Education.


336

Research Population

The population of the study consisted of 2823 teachers working in public primary and

secondary schools in Avcılar and Esenyurt districts of Istanbul during the first half of the 2019-2020

academic year. The reason why these districts have been chosen as the universe is that the first

researcher has worked as an administrator in District National Education Directorate of Avcılar and

the third researcher has worked as a school principal in Esenyurt. In this context, the distribution of

teachers in the research population on district basis and as school grade has been given below:

Table 1. Research Population Schools Avcılar District Esenyurt District Total

f % f % f % Primary School 482 17.07 582 20.62 1064 37.69 Secondary School 791 28.02 968 34.29 1759 62.31 Total 1273 45.09 1550 54.91 2823 100

Research Sample

The sample of the study is 340 teachers who have been reached by simple random sampling

method who have been worked in public primary and secondary schools in Avcılar and Esenyurt

districts of Istanbul in the first semester of the 2019-2020 academic year. At the stage of determining

the research sample, the sampling error has been accepted as 0.05 and the minimum number expected

to be included in the sample was calculated with the following formula as Saka (2004) also stated:

=

In the above formula, n is the number of teachers in sample (338.25), N is the number of

teachers in the population (2823), p is the frequency of the situation being investigated (0.5), q is the

frequency of the situation being investigated (0.5), d is the sampling error (0.05) and t is the accepted

significance level (the value corresponding to 0.05 is 1.96). Considering the specified population

value, it is seen that more people have participated in the study than the number of the calculated

sample. The distribution of the teachers who constitute the sample of the research according to their

demographic characteristics has been given in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Distribution of the teachers in the sample according to their demographic characteristics Independent variables Groups f % Gender Female 225 66.0

Male 115 34.0 Total 340 100

Professional Seniority 1-10 years 167 49.0 11-20 years 114 34.0 21 years and above 59 17.0

Total 340 100


337

Educational Status Undergraduate 267 78.5 Graduate 73 21.5

Total 340 100

Number of Projects Participated in Professional Life

Never participated 93 27.0 1-2 times 142 42.0 3 and above 105 31.0

Total 340 100

When Table 2 above is examined, it is seen that 225 of the teachers are women and 115 are

men in the sample group. In addition, 167 of the same teachers have a seniority of 1-10 years, 114 of

them 11-20 years, and 59 of them 21 or more years. 267 of the these teachers’ educational status are

undergraduate education and 73 of them are graduate education. Finally, 93 of these teachers have not

involved in any project in their professional lives, while 142 of them have took part in 1-2 times and

105 of them 3 or more projects.

Data Collection Tools

“The Motivation Scale” developed by Gagné, Forest, Gilbert, Aube, Morin and Malorni

(2010) and adapted to Turkish by Çevik and Köse (2017) and “Curriculum Autonomy Scale”

developed by Yolcu (2019) have been used as data collection tools in the research.

The Motivation Scale used to determine teachers’ motivation levels is a five-point Likert-type

scale and it is answered as “I do not agree at all (1), I do not agree (2), I have no idea (3), I agree (4),

and I completely agree (5)”. The scores that can be obtained from the 12-item scale range between 12

and 60. While the scale has been adapted to Turkish, it is seen that the four-dimensional structure of

the scale has been preserved during the exploratory factor analysis process in testing the construct

validity. These dimensions are in the form of “intrinsic motivation”, “identified regulation”,

“internalized regulation” and “external regulation”. After the exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory

factor analysis has been also performed for construct validity. In this process, Chi-Square Fit Test

value has been found as 2.4, CFI value as .962, TLI value as .945 and RMSEA value as .067.

Considering these values Chi-Square Fit Test, CFI, RMSEA values are within good fit (Schermelleh-

Engel, Moosbrugger & Muller, 2003); TLI value is within acceptable compliance limits (Hu, &

Bentler, 1999). Within the scope of reliability analysis, the Cronbach Alpha value has been calculated

as .88 for the whole scale. The Cronbach Alpha value has been calculated for the reliability analysis

in this research is .809. This value can be evaluated as giving reliable results regarding the usability of

the scale on the sample group studied.

The Curriculum Autonomy Scale is a five-point Likert-type scale used to determine teachers’

curriculum autonomy levels and it is answered as “Never (1), Rarely (2), Occasionally (3), Very often

(4) and Always (5)”. The scores that can be obtained from the 13-item scale range between 13 and 65.

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyzes have been conducted to determine the construct validity

during the development process of the scale. Yolcu (2019) first performed the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin


338

(KMO) test to test the sample size and Bartlett’s test of sphericity to examine the normality

distribution of the data. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis performed after the values found,

a total of 13 items and a 4-factor scale structure that explains 67.44% of the total variance has been

reached. These dimensions are in the form of “professional development autonomy”, “process

autonomy”, “assessment autonomy” and “planning autonomy”. Afterward, the researcher has

conducted a confirmatory factor analysis in order to support the 4-factor structure of the scale. In this

process, Chi-Square Fit Test value has been found as 1.47, CFI value as .98, RMSEA value as .052

and RMR value as .05. Additionally GFI value has been found as .93, AGFI value as .89 and SRMR

value as .06 has been found. Considering these values Chi-Square Fit Test, CFI, RMSEA and RMR

values are within good fit and GFI, AGFI and SRMR values are within acceptable compliance limits

(Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Those values have shown that the original structure of the scale has

been supported. Within the scope of the researcher reliability analysis, the Cronbach Alpha value has

been calculated as .91 for the whole scale. In this research, the Cronbach Alpha value has been

calculated for the reliability analysis and found as .835. This value can be evaluated as giving reliable

results regarding the usability of the scale on the sample group studied.

Data Analysis

The answers of the teachers regarding the scales prepared on the internet through Google

forms has been downloaded to the computer as an Excel file and transferred to the SPSS v.22 package

program. Afterwards, in line with the teachers’ responses to the Motivation Scale and Curriculum

Autonomy Scale, the normality distribution of the data has been examined and the analyzes has been

carried out accordingly. In this context, the descriptive statistics values obtained from the Motivation

Scale are detailed in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics obtained from the Motivation Scale and Sub-dimensions of the Scale

Scale and Sub-dimensions N X Median Mode sd Skewness Kurtosis

Min. Max.

Values Motivation Scale 340 3.56 3.58 3.58 .53 -.426 .422 1.92-

4.75 Instrinsic

Motivation 340 4.39 4.33 5.00 .62 -.843 .892 1.67-

5.00 Identified

Regulation 340 3.94 4.00 4.00 .81 -.813 .519 1.33-

5.00 Internalized

Regulation 340 3.32 3.33 3.33 .92 -.318 -.386 1.00-

5.00 External

Regulation 340 2.59 2.67 2.67 .61 .202 .188 1.00-

4.33

When Table 3 above is examined, it is seen that the values of skewness and kurtosis

coefficients of the data in the Motivation Scale and sub-dimensions of the scale are between -1 and

+1. These values indicate that the data show a normal distribution (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). In


339

addition, since the mean, median and mode values are seen to be close to each other, it can be said

that the data show a normal distribution (Büyüköztürk, 2010).

The descriptive statistics values obtained from the Curriculum Autonomy Scale and sub-

dimensions of the scale are detailed in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics obtained from the Curriculum Autonomy Scale and Sub-dimensions of the Scale

Scale and Sub-dimensions N X Median Mode sd Skewness Kurtosis

Min. Max.

Values Curriculum Autonomy Scale

340 3.82 3.77 3.62 .53 .023 -.035 2.08-5.00

Professional

Development

Autonomy

340 3.58 3.67 3.00 .84 -.189 -.255 1.00-5.00

Process

Autonomy 340 4.12 4.00 4.00 .59 -.443 .304 2.00-

5.00 Assessment

Autonomy 340 4.01 4.00 4.00 .67 -.499 .829 1.00-

5.00 Planning

Autonomy 340 3.49 3.33 3.00 .89 -.044 -.402 1.00-

5.00

When Table 4 above is examined, it is seen that the values of skewness and kurtosis

coefficients of the data in the Curriculum Autonomy Scale and sub-dimensions of the scale are

between -1 and +1. In addition, it can be said that the data in the scale and its sub-dimensions show a

normal distribution, since the mean, median and mode values are also close to each other.

In the study, in order to make comparisons between groups in the independent variables,

whether the data in these groups meet the normality assumptions has been also examined with

descriptive statistics. In this context, descriptive statistics values obtained from the groups in the

independent variables of gender, education status, professional seniority and number of projects

participated in professional life for the Motivation Scale are detailed in Table 5 below.

When Table 5 below is examined, it is seen that the values of the skewness and kurtosis

coefficients of the data in the independent variables for the Motivation Scale are between -1 and +1.

In addition, since the mean, median and mode values are also close to each other, it can be said that

the data in each of the independent variables show normal distribution separately.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for Motivation Scale obtained from independent variables of gender, educational status, professional seniority and number of projects participated in professional life

Independent Variable Group N X Median sd Skewness Kurtosis

Gender Female 225 3.60 3.58 .49 -.359 .637 Male 115 3.48 3.50 .58 -.395 -.026

Educational Status Undergraduate 267 3.58 3.58 .53 -.455 .385 Graduate 73 3.49 3.50 .51 -.368 .822


340

Professional Seniority

1-10 years 167 3.60 3.58 .52 -.413 .711 11-20 years 114 3.54 3.58 .54 -.523 .378 21 years and above 59 3.50 3.58 .53 -.277 .030

Number of projects participated in professional life

Never participated 93 3.53 3.50 .50 -.157 .203 1-2 times participated 142 3.57 3.58 .53 -.599 .590 3 and above times participated 105 3.57 3.58 .55 -.424 .530

In addition, before determining which test types to be used in the analysis of the data, it has

also been examined whether the data in the independent variables provided the normality

assumptions. Descriptive statistics values obtained from the groups in the independent variables of

gender, education status, professional seniority and number of projects participated in professional life

for the Curriculum Autonomy Scale are detailed in Table 6 below.

When Table 6 below is examined, it is seen that the values of the skewness and kurtosis

coefficients of the data in the independent variables for the Curriculum Autonomy Scale are between -

1 and +1. In addition, since the mean, median and mode values are also close to each other, it can be

said that the data in each of the independent variables show normal distribution separately. For this

reason, Independent Samples t-Test and One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which are among

parametric tests, have been performed in order to compare dependent variables for independent

variables in the analysis of the data. In addition, the Pearson Product-Moments correlation

coefficients (r) have been calculated to examine the relationship between two dependent variables,

namely motivation and curriculum autonomy.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for Curriculum Autonomy Scale obtained from independent variables of gender, educational status, professional seniority and number of projects participated in professional life

Independent Variable Group N X Median sd Skewness Kurtosis

Gender Female 225 3.85 3.77 .54 .142 -.275 Male 115 3.77 3.69 .50 -.310 .423

Educational Status

Undergraduate 267 3.80 3.77 .53 .021 -.056 Graduate 73 3.90 3.85 .52 .046 .121


1-10 years 167 3.79 3.77 .50 -.026 .141 11-20 years 114 3.87 3.85 .52 .150 -.199 21 years and above 59 3.82 3.77 .61 -.068 -.281

Number of projects participated in professional life

Never participated 93 3.62 3.54 .52 .178 -.061

1-2 times participated 142 3.79 3.77 .49 .152 -.206

3 and above times participated 105 4.04 4.00 .51 -.265 .972

Validity and Ethical Considerations

For the validity of the research, it is important that all three researchers are educational

sciences experts. In line with the purpose of the research, firstly the literature have been searched and


341

scales suitable for data collection have been determined. Afterwards, permission for use have been

obtained from the researchers who adapted and developed the scales through e-mail. The teachers

participating in the study have been diversified according to certain demographic characteristics and

the opportunity to make comparisons between groups have been obtained. The data have been

obtained by sharing the access link regarding the scale forms on the internet. In this regard, the

purpose and scope of the research have been clearly stated at the beginning before personal

information and scale questions. The demographic characteristics of the teachers participating in the

research in terms of reliability have been clearly stated in the sample part of the research. The data in

the research have been collected with the voluntary participation of teachers. Based on the answers

has been obtained in the data analysis section, reliability coefficients for both scales has been

calculated and the findings obtained through the analysis have been reported clearly.

Results

In this section, the results obtained after the analysis of the research data have been given in order.

Results Regarding Teachers’ Motivation and Curriculum Autonomy Levels

According to Table 3 above, the arithmetic mean of the scores obtained from the 12-item

Motivation Scale is X =3.56. In this context, it can be said that teachers’ motivation levels are high.

According to Table 4 above, the arithmetic mean of the scores obtained from the 13-item Curriculum

Autonomy Scale is X =3.82. This value indicates that teachers’ level of curriculum autonomy is high

as well. These values show the findings that both motivation and curriculum autonomy levels increase

as the scores obtained from both scales increase.

Results Regarding the Comparison of Teachers’ Motivation and Curriculum Autonomy Levels for Independent Variables

In the Table 7 below, the findings for the Independent Samples t-Test conducted to determine

whether the motivation and curriculum autonomy levels of teachers differ significantly according to

the variables of gender and educational status have been given.

Table 7. Results for the Independent Samples t-Test conducted to examine the average scores of teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy levels according to the variables of gender and educational status

Dependent Variable Independent Variable Group N X ss sd t p

Motivation Level

Gender

Female 225 3.60 .49 338 2.113 .035* Male 115 3.48 .58

Curriculum Autonomy Level

Female 225 3.85 .54 338 1.207 .228 Male 115 3.77 .50

Motivation Level Educational Status

Undergraduate 267 3.58 .53 338 1.366 .173 Graduate 73 3.49 .51


Undergraduate 267 3.80 .53 338 -1.481 .139 Graduate 73 3.90 .52

*p<0.05


342

When the Table 7 above is examined, the arithmetic mean of the scores related to the

motivation levels of the teachers does not show a significant difference according to the variables of

education level (p>.05). However, it has been determined that the arithmetic mean of the scores

regarding the motivation levels of the teachers has showed a significant difference according to the

gender variable [t (338)=2.113, p<.05]. In this context, it has been revealed that female teachers

(X =3.60) have higher motivation levels than male teachers (X =3.48). This finding reveals that

teachers’ motivation levels can differ significantly according to gender. Again, according to Table 7,

it has been determined that the arithmetic mean of the scores the teachers get regarding the curriculum

autonomy levels have not show a significant difference according to the variables of gender and

education level (p>.05).

In Table 8 below, the findings of Single Factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for

Independent Samples have been given to determine whether teachers’ motivation and curriculum

autonomy levels differ significantly with respect to professional seniority variable.

Table 8. Results for One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for independent samples conducted to examine teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy levels according to professional seniority variable

Dependent Variable

Independent Variable

Source of Variance

Sum of Squares df Mean

Squares F p Significant Difference

Motivation Level


Between Groups .466 2 .233 .839 .433 -

Within Groups 93.528 337 .278

Total 93.994 339


Between Groups .460 2 .230 .825 .439 -


Total 94.301 339

According to the data in Table 8, the average scores of teachers regarding motivation levels

do not show a significant difference according to the professional seniority variable [F (2, 337) =.839,

p> .05]. This finding can be interpreted as that the motivation levels of teachers do not change

significantly depending on professional seniority. Likewise, the average scores of teachers regarding

curriculum autonomy levels do not show a significant difference according to the professional

seniority variable [F (2, 337)=.825, p> .05]. This finding can be interpreted as that teachers’

curriculum autonomy levels do not change significantly depending on their professional seniority.

In the following Table 9, the findings of One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) have been

given to determine whether teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy levels differ significantly

according to the variable of the number of projects involved in professional life.


343

Table 9. Results for One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) conducted to examine teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy levels according to the variable of the number of projects participated in professional life

Dependent Variable

Independent Variable

Source of Variance

Sum of Squares df Mean

Squares F p Significant Difference

Motivation Level Number of

projects participated in professional life

Between Groups .111 2 .055 .199 .820 -


Total 93.994 339


Between Groups 8.958 2 4.479 17.686 .000 B>A

C>A Within Groups 85.344 337 .253

Total 94.301 339 * p<.05, A: Never participated; B: 1-2 times; C: 3 times and above

According to the data in Table 9, the average scores of teachers regarding motivation levels

do not show a significant difference according to the variable of the number of projects participated in

professional life [F (2, 337) =. 199, p>.05]. This finding can be interpreted as that the motivation

levels of teachers do not change significantly depending on the number of projects participated in

professional life. However, according to Table 9, the average scores of teachers regarding curriculum

autonomy levels show a significant difference according to the variable of number of projects

participated in professional life [F (2, 337)= 17.686, p>.05]. According to the results of the Scheffe

test conducted to determine between which groups have a significant difference, teachers who has

participated 1-2 times (X =3.79) and 3 or more (X=4.04) projects in professional life has been found

higher levels of curriculum autonomy than those who has never participated in the project (X =3.62).

Depending on these findings, it can be said that with the increase in the number of teachers’

participation in projects in professional life, their level of curriculum autonomy also increases.

In Table 10 below, the relationship between teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy

levels and the sub-dimensions related to them is tried to has been examined. Results regarding the

Simple Linear Correlation Analysis performed within this context have been given.

Table 10. Results regarding the relationship between teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy levels and sub-dimensions

Professional Development Autonomy

Process Autonomy

Assessment Autonomy

Planning Autonomy

Curriculum Autonomy

Identified Regulation .381** .405** .193** .276** .442** Intrinsic Motivation .218** .184** .112* .113* .220** Introjected Regulation .248** .263** .205** .053 .261** External Regulation .036 -.025 .050 -.089 -.015 Motivation .314** .296** .203** .121* .324**

**: significant at .01 level, p <.01; * significant at level of .05, p <.05


344

In Table 10 above, it is seen that there is a moderately positive and significant relationship

between teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy levels (r=.324, p<.01). In addition, it is seen

that the highest relationship with the curriculum autonomy of teachers is in the sub-dimension of

motivation identified with the regulation (r=.442, p <.01). On the other hand, no significant

relationship has been found between the mean scores of teachers’ curriculum autonomy and sub-

dimensions of curriculum autonomy with the external regulation sub-dimension of motivation.

Accordingly, it can be said that the level of motivation for external regulation does not affect

teachers’ level of curriculum autonomy. In other words, teachers’ level of curriculum autonomy is not

significantly affected by the sub-dimension of motivation related to external regulation.

Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations

The following results have been obtained in this research, which deals with teachers’

motivation and curriculum autonomy levels and in which 340 teachers participated: In the research, it

has been determined that teachers’ motivation levels is high (X =3.56). Considering the fact that the

motivation increases with the increase in the scores obtained from the Motivation Scale, this result

can be accepted as high level. Similarly, in the studies of Çevik and Köse (2017), Çobanoğlu ve

Barutçu (2020), Uçar and Dağlı (2017) and Keller, Neumann and Fischer (2017), it has been found

that teachers’ motivation is at a high level. On the contrary, there are studies that indicate that

teachers’ motivation is at medium level (Memişoğlu & Kalay, 2017; Sucu, 2016; Ugar, 2019) and low

level (Barlı, Bilgili, Çelik, & Bayrakçeken, 2005; Yılmaz, 2017). These different results are thought

to be due to the fact that the studies examining teacher motivation has been conducted in different

regions and the factors motivating teachers are different from each other. In this context, it is thought

that teachers’ motivation should be increased so that they can take a more active role in the education-

training process, enrich the teaching-learning process, take more responsibility and increase their

commitment to their profession.

In the research, it has been determined that the motivation levels of the teachers differ

significantly according to the gender variable, but not according to the variables of education level,

professional seniority and the number of projects participated in professional life. When the

differentiation between teachers’ motivation levels according to gender variable is examined, it has

been determined that female teachers (X =3.60) have higher motivation than male teachers (X =3.48).

Similarly, Emiroğlu (2017) has concluded that the motivation levels of female teachers differ

significantly from male teachers. However, Triyanto (2016) has found that male teachers’ motivation

is higher than female teachers. The researcher has interpreted this situation as male teachers want to

be more successful in their professional career. On the contrary, there are studies that found that

teachers’ motivation levels do not differ significantly according to gender (Çevik & Köse, 2017;

Çobanoğlu & Barutçu 2020; Sarı, Canoğulları, & Yıldız, 2018; Taşkesen, Taşkesen, Bakırhan, &


345

Tanoğlu, 2018; Urhan, 2018). It is thought that these differences may arise from the perspective of the

teaching profession and the roles of the teaching profession regarding women or men in the countries

where the studies has been conducted.

In the analysis according to the educational status variable, it has been found that graduating

from undergraduate or graduate programs does not cause a significant motivation difference in

teachers. Similarly, Çevik and Köse (2017), Çiftçi (2017) and Emiroğlu (2017) also has concluded

that teachers’ motivation levels have not differ significantly according to their educational status.

Ugar (2019) also has found that there are no significant differences in the intrinsic and extrinsic

motivations of teachers according to their educational status. On the contrary, in Triyanto’s (2016)

research, it has been found that the motivation of teachers with undergraduate education is higher than

those with a master’s degree. She has stated that this might be due to the fact that teachers who have a

master’s degree think they have sufficient knowledge and do not need to participate in capacity

building curriculums. It is thought that this result of the present research may have been taken for

different individual or career purposes of graduate education and therefore does not make a significant

difference on motivation.

When the motivation levels of teachers in terms of professional seniority has been examined,

no significant difference in motivation has been found among teachers with a professional seniority of

1-10 years, 11-20 years and 21 years or more. In parallel with this research result, Çiftçi (2017),

Çobanoğlu and Barutçu (2020), Emiroğlu (2017) have concluded that the motivation levels of

teachers for their professional seniority do not differ. On the contrary, in Triyanto’s (2016) research, it

has been determined that teachers’ motivation decreases with the increase in their professional

seniority. Similarly, in the research of Urhan (2018), it has been determined that the motivation of

teachers with a seniority year of 5 or less is higher than those with a seniority year of 11-19 and 20 or

more. However, the result of the present research is thought to be due to the fact that half of the

participating teachers have been in the profession between 1-10 years and the distribution between

groups is not balanced.

When the number of projects participated in professional life has been examined, it has been

determined that there is no significant difference in the motivation levels of teachers who have not

participate in any project, participated 1-2 times or participated 3 or more times. On the contrary,

Schellenbach-Zell and Gräsel (2010) have concluded that teacher motivation is an important factor

affecting participation in projects carried out within the scope of the innovative school. Similarly,

Gorozidis, and Papaioannou (2014) have concluded that there is a significant relationship between

autonomous motivation, a sub-dimension of motivation, and participation in projects. Teacher teams

that organize local research projects in schools learn on their own and gain original experiences by

working together, thanks to the motivation to seek new information, to work on problem-based school


346

development, to take into account problems, to produce solutions to problems (Iliya & Ifeoma, 2015).

However, in the present research, it can be said that the fact that participating in the project in

professional life do not create significant differences on motivation among the participants may be

due to the fact that the groups regarding the number of participation in the project are close to each

other. However, when the motivation averages between the groups has been examined, it has been

determined that the teachers who participated in the project before is partially higher than those who

never has participated. From this point of view, it is thought that the motivation levels of teachers may

increase as they participate in projects in schools.

It has been also determined in the research that teachers’ level of curriculum autonomy is high

(X =3.82). Considering the fact that the curriculum autonomy increases with the increase in the scores

obtained from the Curriculum Autonomy Scale, this result can be accepted as high level. Similarly,

Çolak and Altınkurt (2017) and Çolak et al. (2017) has found that teachers’ autonomy behaviors are

high in their studies. Different from the result obtained, it has been concluded in the research

conducted by Yazıcı (2016) in the province of Muğla that the curriculum autonomy levels of teachers

are at a medium level. In his research in Yolcu (2019), she has concluded that science teachers have

curriculum autonomy above the intermediate level. Behroozi and Osam (2016), in their research on

English teachers in Iran, have concluded that teachers’ level of curriculum autonomy is low.

Similarly, in the studies of Worth and Van den Brande (2020), teachers in England has reported that

they have a low level of autonomy towards the curriculum content of the courses. The reasons for this

differentiation among the research results; it can be interpreted as the result of the diversity of

branches covered by the country, region and sample groups. In the study of Varatharaj, Abdullah, and

İsmail (2015), it has stated that teachers' high curriculum autonomy enables them to make the

teaching process more functional and convenient. In the same study, it has concluded that curriculum

autonomy has positive effects on student learning, student autonomy and student performance.

In the research, it has been determined that teachers’ curriculum autonomy levels do not differ

significantly according to gender, educational status and professional seniority variables, but

significantly differentiate according to the variable of the number of projects involved in professional

life. Similarly, in the research of Behroozi and Osam (2016); it has been concluded that teachers’

curriculum autonomy levels do not show a significant difference according to gender, seniority,

educational status and professional seniority variables. Çolak et al. (2017) has concluded that the

autonomy levels of the teachers do not differ significantly according to gender and seniority.

Similarly, it has been concluded in Yazıcı’s (2016) research, the autonomy levels of teachers do not

differ significantly according to gender variable but according to the professional seniority variable,

teachers who has worked for 10 years or less have a higher level of curriculum autonomy than those

who has worked for more than 20 years. It can be said that this difference may be due to the tendency

of teachers to take more initiative in the first years of the profession.


347

When the number of projects participated in professional life has been examined, it has been

determined that the teachers who have participated in the project 1-2 times in professional life

(X =3.79) and 3 or more times (X =4.04) have higher curriculum autonomy than those who have never

participated in the project (X =3.62). Based on these findings, it can be said that taking part in any

project, regardless of whether it is regional, national or international, has an important effect on

curriculum autonomy during the practice of the teaching profession. It can be thought that this result

is due to teachers’ ability to gain flexibility by determining all steps themselves during the creation,

maintenance or finalization of projects. In a research, Yolcu (2019) has concluded that teachers’

curriculum autonomy levels do not differ significantly according to the variable of participation in the

project. In Yolcu’s (2019) research, this variable has been categorized as participating or not

participating in the project. In the present research, it is thought that the categorization of the number

of participation in the project may be the reason for this differentiation. As a matter of fact, the high

number of participations in the project indicates more experience in project processes. Thus, it can be

said that a project-based teaching process can provide an environment that will allow the curriculum

to be redesigned. As a matter of fact, Shome and Natarajan (2013) emphasize that project creation and

implementation differentiates the concepts of learning and philosophical understanding of education

for teachers. In this context, it can be stated that teachers can redesign their curriculum by reviewing

them in the light of their experiences from projects.

Finally, a moderately positive and significant relationship has been determined between

teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy levels (r=.324, p<.01). In other words, it can be

evaluated that the autonomy levels of the curriculum increases with the increase of the motivation of

teachers, or on the contrary, their motivation increases with the increase in the level of curriculum

autonomy. In addition, in the present research, it has been determined that the highest relationship

between teachers’ perceptions of curriculum autonomy levels is in the dimension of motivation

identified with regulation. Similarly, Worth and Van den Brande (2020) has found a positive

relationship between teachers’ professional autonomy and motivation levels. In the same way, Wu

(2015) has concluded that there is a high level of positive and significant relationship between

teachers’ motivation levels and teacher autonomy. In the same research, it has been concluded that

teacher curriculum autonomy is a significant predictor of teacher motivation. Namunga (2017), on the

other hand, has concluded in his research that there is a significant relationship between teachers’

motivation and their way of implementing the curriculum. In the context of these results, it can be

said that teachers with high motivation can behave more autonomously during the implementation of

the curriculum.

In addition, it has been found that the highest relationship in the research is between the

identified regulation sub-dimension of motivation and curriculum autonomy. In other words, it can be

said that teachers can make an effort to make the current curriculum the most functional by defining


348

their profession as a sacred value. As a matter of fact, Çermik, Doğan and Şahin (2010) has concluded

in their research that internal and altruistic reasons are more prominent in teachers’ choice of

profession. Similarly, Worth and Van den Brande (2020) stated in their research that teachers’

professional autonomy is related to their intrinsic motivation. In this context, it is thought that the

instructional innovations and practices that teachers will realize thanks to the autonomy of the

curriculum, who are committed to providing benefit to the society, are an important way to achieve

their goals. Another important finding of the research is that the external regulation dimension of

teachers’ motivation levels has no significant relationship with either curriculum autonomy or any of

the dimensions of curriculum autonomy. In this context, it can be said that the motivation that

teachers gain externally is not a determining factor on curriculum autonomy. Unlike Wu (2015), it has

concluded that teacher curriculum autonomy is a significant predictor of teacher extrinsic motivation.

The reason for this difference can be interpreted as the change in external factors motivating

the sample groups. In other words, these results can be interpreted as they can be effective in

redesigning the curriculum by passing through various filters according to the type of extrinsic

motivation elements. Based on these results obtained from the research, the following

recommendations can be offered:

1. Qualitative research can be conducted that examine teacher motivation and curriculum autonomy in a more comprehensive and in-depth manner.

2. During the implementation of the curriculum, a trust-building administrator approach that will allow teachers to revise the curriculum can be adopted.

3. In the context of the research results, it can be ensured that teachers who prefer the profession for altruistic reasons are determined and appointed.

4. Teachers should be supported to produce projects and integrate the projects into the curriculum.

References

Akhtar, S. N. (2013). The relationship between teacher motivation and students’ academic achievement at secondary school level (Unpubished doctoral dissertation). University of Education, Lahore.

Akhtar, S. N., Iqbal, M., & Tatlah, I. A. (2017). Relationship between intrinsic motivation and students’ academic achievement: A secondary level evidence. Bulletin of Education and Research, 39(2), 19-29.

Ayral, M., Özdemir, N., Türedi, A., Yılmaz-Fındık, L., Büyükgöze, H., Demirezen, S., Özarslan, H., & Tahirbegi, Y. (2014). Öğretmen özerkliği ile öğrenci başarısı arasındaki ilişki: PISA örneği. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 207-218.

Barlı, Ö., Bilgili, B., Çelik, S., & Bayrakçeken, S. (2005). İlköğretim okul öğretmenlerinin motivasyonları: Farklılıkların ve sorunların araştırılması. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(1), 391-417.


349

Bastick, T. (2000). The measurement of teacher motivation: Cross-cultural and gender comparisons. Paper presentation at the 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research: New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

Ben-Peretz, M. (1980). Teachers’ role in curriculum development: An alternative approach. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'education, 5(2) 52-62.

Behroozi, A., & Osam, Ü. V. (2016). Teacher autonomy from the perspective of Iranian English teachers. Journal of Teaching and Education, 5(2), 91-98.

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (11. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

Can, S. (2015). Investigation of the motivation level of teachers working at state schools in relation to some variables. International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(3), 153-161.

Canbolat, Y. (2020). Türkiye’de ortaöğretim öğretmenlerinin mesleki özerkliği: Var olan ve olası politikaların bir analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 45(202), 141-171. doi: 10.15390/EB.2020.7833

Collier, J. (2002). What is autonomy? In International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems: CASY 2001-Fifth International Conference, Liege, Belgium, 13-18 August.

Çermik, H., Doğan, B., & Şahin, A. (2010). Sınıf öğretmenliği öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik mesleğini tercih sebepleri. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28 (2), 201-212.

Çevik, A., & Köse, A. (2017). Öğretmenlerin okul kültürü algıları ile motivasyonları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 996-1014.

Çiftçi, N. (2017). Öğretmenlerin algılarına göre motivasyon kaynaklarının belirlenmesi (Unpublished master’s thesis), Maltepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.

Çobanoğlu, F., & Barutçu, A. (2020). Okullarda takım liderliği ve öğretmen motivasyonu. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 13(75), 545-553.

Çolak, İ., & Altınkurt, Y. (2017). Okul iklimi ile öğretmenlerin özerklik davranışları arasındaki ilişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 23(1), 33-71.

Çolak, İ., Altınkurt, Y., & Yılmaz, K. (2017). Öğretmenlerin özerklik davranışları ile iş doyumları arasındaki ilişki. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2), 189-208.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182-185. doi: 10.1037/a0012801

Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation a literature review. System, 23(2), 165-174. doi: 10.1016/0346-251X(95)00005-5

Emiroğlu, O. (2017). Öğretmen motivasyon kaynaklarına ilişkin okul yöneticisi ve öğretmen görüşleri (Unpublished doctoral thesis), KKTC Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Lefkoşa.

Ertürk, R. (2016). Öğretmenlerin iş motivasyonları. Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 1-15.

Gagné, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M.H., Aube, C., Morin, E. & Malorni, A. (2010). The motivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 628-646. doi: 10.1177/0013164409355698


350

Gokce, F. (2010). Assessment of teacher motivation. School Leadership and Management, 30(5), 487-499. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2010.525228

Gorozidis, G., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2014). Teachers’ motivation to participate in training and to implement innovations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.12.001

Gurganious, N. J. (2017). The relationship between teacher autonomy and middle school students’ achievement in science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Minnesota.

Han, J., & Yin, H. (2016). Teacher motivation: Definition, research development and implications for teachers. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1217819, Doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2016.1217819

Hayden, S. S. (2011). Teacher motivation and student achievement in middle school students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University, College of Education, Minnesota.

Hong, W. P., & Youngs, P. (2016). Why are teachers afraid of curricular autonomy? Contradictory effects of the new national curriculum in South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(1), 20-33. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2014.959471

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Huang, J. (2005). Teacher autonomy in language learning: A review of the research. In K. R. Katyal, H. C. Lam & X. J. Ding (Eds.), Research studies in education (Volume 3, pp. 203-218). Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong.

Iliya, A., & Ifeoma, L. G. (2015). Assessment of teacher motivation approaches in the less developed countries. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(22), 10-17.

Julião, A. (2018). Teacher curriculum autonomy in Angola: a look at the legislative perspective. Revista Electrónica de Investigação e Desenvolvimento, 2(9).

Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (19. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.

Keller, M. M., Neumann, K., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement and interest. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(5), 586-614. doi: 10.1002/tea.21378

Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26-41. doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26

Kotherja, O., & Rapti, E. (2015). The importance of motivation in employees’ performance in schools. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(2), 117-122. doi: 10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n2p117

Lamb, T. (2008). Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy: Synthesizing an agenda. In T. Lamd & H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and responses (pp. 269-284). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Lee, K. (2014). Competency-based curriculum and curriculum autonomy in the Republic of Korea. IBE Working Papers on Curriculum Issues No. 12. UNESCO International Bureau of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/document/competency-based-curriculum-and-curriculum-autonomy-republic-korea-ibe-working-papers Retrieved date 25.12.2020.


351

Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175-181. doi: 10.1016/0346-251X(95)00006-6

McMillan, J. H., & Forsyth, D. R. (1991). What theories of motivation say about why learners learn. New directions for teaching and learning, 45(2), 39-51. doi: 10.1002/tl.37219914507

Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 351-373. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.004

Mello, H., Dutra, D. P., & Jorge, M. (2008). Action research as a tool for teacher autonomy. DELTA: Documentação de estudos em lingüística teórica e aplicada, 4(2), 113-128. doi: 10.1590/S0102-44502008000300007

Memişoğlu, S. P., & Kalay, M. (2017). İlkokul ve ortaokullarda görev yapan öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılık ve motivasyonları arasındaki ilişki (Bolu ili örneği). Electronic Turkish Studies, 12(4), 367-392. doi: 10.7827/TurkishStudies.11379

Moomaw, W. E. (2005). Teacher-perceived autonomy: A construct validation of the teacher autonomy scale (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). College of Professional Studies, University of West Florida.

Namunga, N. W. (2017). The relationship between teacher and student motivation and the quality of teaching and learning in secondary schools. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications , 7(2), 428-434.

Neves de Jesus, S., & Lens, W. (2005). An integrated model for the study of teacher motivation. Applied Psychology, 54(1), 119-134. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00199.x

Özbilen, F. M., Günay, G., & Yıldız, B. B. (2020). Evaluation of teachers’ motivation and participation levels in professional development activities. International Journal of Educational Studies and Policy (IJESP), 1(1), 15-35.

Öztürk, İ. H. (2011). Öğretmen özerkliği üzerine kuramsal bir inceleme. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(35), 82-99.

Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38-54.

Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2006). Continuing validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 44-51. doi: 10.3200/JOER.100.1.44-51

Revee, J., & Su, Y. L. (2014). Teacher motivation. In M. Gagné (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory (pp. 349-362). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self‐regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self‐determination, and will?. Journal of personality, 74(6), 1557-1586. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x

Saka, O. (2004). Araştırma evreleri II: Araştırmalarda deneklerin seçimi. Türkiye Acil Tıp Dergisi, 4(2), 81-85.

Sarı, M., Canoğulları, E., & Yıldız, E. (2018). Öğretmenlerin okul yaşam kalitesi algıları ile mesleki motivasyon düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 47, 387-409. doi: 10.21764/maeuefd.364454


352

Sari, H., & Yetkiner, A. (2020). Relationships between job satisfaction, motivation and life satisfaction in the teachers: A structural equation modeling study. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(3), 211-222. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.248.16

Schellenbach-Zell, J., & Gräsel, C. (2010). Teacher motivation for participating in school innovations-supporting factors. Journal for Educational Research Online, 2(2), 34-54.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23-74.

Sehrawat, J. (2014). Teacher autonomy: Key to teaching success. Hartıyam International Journal Of Education & Researcha: Quarterly Peer Reviewed International Journal of Research& Education, 4(1), 2277-1255.

Shome, S., & Natarajan, C. (2013). Projects in school learning: Teacher experiences. In Nagarjuna G., Arvind Jamakhandi, and Ebie M. Sam (Eds.), Proceedings of epiSTEME -5 (pp. 321-327).

Silberstein, M., & Ben-Peretz, M. (1987). The concept of teacher autonomy in curriculum materials: An operative interpretation. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3(1), 29-44.

Smith, R. C. (2003). Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy. In Symposium for Language Teacher Educators: Papers from Three IALS Symposia (CD-ROM). Edinburgh: IALS, University of Edinburgh. Retrieved from http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/~elsdr/Teacher_autonomy.pdf Retrieved date 28.12.2020

Sucu, A. (2016). Öğretmenlerin motivasyonu ile okul yöneticilerinin öğretimsel liderlik davranışları arasındaki ilişkinin analizi (Unpublished master’s thesis). İnönü Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Malatya.

Şeker, S. E. (2015). Motivasyon teorisi (Motivation theory). YBS Ansiklopedi, 2(1), 22-26.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Taşkesen, S., Taşkesen, O., Bakırhan, A., & Tanoğlu, Ş. (2018). Görsel sanatlar öğretmenlerinin motivasyon düzeyleri ve motivasyonlarını etkileyen faktörler üzerine bir araştırma (Erzincan ili örneği). Erzincan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (ERZSOSDE), 11(2), 77-85.

Tohidi, H., & Jabbari, M. M. (2012). The effects of motivation in education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 820-824. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.148

Triyanto, R. A. D. H. (2016). Teacher motivation based on gender, tenure and level of education. The New Educational Review, 45(3), 199-209. doi: 10.15804/tner.2016.45.3.16

Uçar, R., & Dağlı, A. (2017). İlkokul müdürlerinin dağıtımcı liderlik davranışları ile öğretmenlerin motivasyon ve yaratıcılık düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 16(60), 198-216. doi: 10.17755/esosder.289661

Ugar, Y. (2019). Okul müdürlerinin liderlik uygulamaları ile öğretmenlerin motivasyonu arasındaki ilişki (Unpublished master’s thesis), İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.

Uğraş, S., & Özen, G. (2019). Examining Teaching Motivations of Physical Education Teachers. International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches, 4(10), 497-512. doi: 10.18826/ijsets.83797


353

Ulas, J., & Aksu, M. (2015). Development of teacher autonomy scale for Turkish teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 344-349. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.023

Urhan, F. (2018). Öğretmenlerin motivasyon düzeylerine etki eden değişkenlerin analizi (Unpublished master’s thesis), Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya.

Utomo, H. B. (2018). Teacher motivation behavior: The importance of personal expectations, need satisfaction, and work climate. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (IJPTE), 2(2), 333-342. doi: 10.20961/ijpte.v2i2.24036

Varatharaj, R., Abdullah, A. G. K., & Ismail, A. (2015). The effect of teacher autonomy on assessment practices among Malaysian cluster school teachers. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 5(1), 31-36.

Watt, H. M., & Richardson, P. W. (2008). Motivations, perceptions, and aspirations concerning teaching as a career for different types of beginning teachers. Learning and instruction, 18(5), 408-428.

Worth, J., & Van den Brande, J. (2020) Teacher autonomy: How does it relate to job satisfaction and retention?, Slough: NFER. Retrieved from https://tdtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/teacher_autonomy_how_does_it_relate_to_job_satisfaction_and_retention-1.pdf Retrieved date 05.01.2021.

Wu, S. M. (2015). Development and application of the measures of school value, teacher autonomy, and teacher motivation. The New Educational Review, 39(1), 240-251.

Yaman, E. (2001). Öğretmenlik mesleğinin sosyo-ekonomik statüsü/bu mesleğin bir bayan mesleği haline dönüşmesi durumu ve eğitim fakültesi üzerine bir araştırma. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (2), 53-68.

Yazıcı, A. S. (2016). The relationship between the teacher autonomy and learner autonomy support behaviors. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 1-23. doi: 10.12973/jesr.2016.62.1

Yıldırım, K. (2021). Analysing the role of external policy interventions in explaining the trend of school educators’ intrinsic motivation. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(1), 306-327. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2020.334.17

Yılmaz, P. (2017). İlkokul öğretmenleri ve yöneticilerinin iş motivasyon düzeylerinin incelenmesi (Unpublished master’s thesis), İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi-Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Yönetimi ve Denetimi Ortak Yüksek Lisans Programı, İstanbul.

Yolcu, O. (2019). Ortaokul fen bilimleri öğretim programının Stufflebeam değerlendirme modeli temelinde öğretmen özerkliği açısından incelenmesi (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Aydın.

Yolcu, O., & Akar-Vural, R. (2020). A scale development study on measuring science teachers’ autonomy on curriculum. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 10(1), 29-52. doi: 10.31704/ijocis.2020.002

evaluation of teachers’ motivation and curriculum autonomy

Documents